For awhile now I have considered myself a libertarian without going much further in explaining. I have never found a sub-ideology to ascribe myself to, however, I have always been a bit weary of anarcho-capitalism. Maybe this is because of constant leftism critism or maybe because it is so "extreme" if you will. However, I am quite interested in learning about your critiques on anarcho-capitalism.
What would be the role of these leaders? You mentioned the leader might not partake in much of anything, and if so, how are they still a leader?
This is just an attempt of trying to fully understand and wrap my brain around the concept put forth. I'm going to go do my *homework* now!
The role is to set rules and enforce them. I am a moral realist, but not an imperialist, so I want to live in a kingdom which upholds the morals that I believe to be true. I would like all communities to follow these rules aswell, but I have to be realistic and realise that not all will. So, the purpose of decentralisation and multiplicity of these communities is that people can choose which rules to follow and go live where they're followed.
Moral and lawful are two different categories. Lawful action don’t violate property rights. Moral actions go much deeper than that. If I understand you right you are saying at least in part that you want rulers to enforce morality. The problem with that is a moral person does not need to be forced into moral action. Jesus doesn’t force the people around him to act in accordance with God. He instead teaches the word of God and than allows the people to act how they want now knowing about God and his teachings. A forced moral act is not moral. Only a person that voluntarily acts can be moral. Even if in the past they agree to a person or group enforcing their morality they still must choose to be moral in order for it to mean anything. A person punishing them because they choose to violate their contract of morality though lawful isn’t moral. It’s egotistical to believe you know the word of god or morality better than any other person. Thus even if you get people to agree on morality and to as a group enforce it the very enforcement of the morality destroys the whole morality of the acts or lack of. Morality must be a course that each person sets them self towards. It must be self induced you are not a person of faith if you are forced into faith even if you agree to be forced into faith. You must choose yourself to be faithful and moral.
Sorry for this being long and ranting. I just think that how you are framing morality is mislead. Disagree if you want I’m just trying to give a counter point as best as I can explain it. As long as your using reason I have nothing against you. Just don’t want an echo chamber like most platforms become. :)
Very, very good article! I hope you plan to do more on these subjects, but perhaps in longer form and perhaps focusing on specific writers or autistic details. Much love
Here's one quibble I have: Aristotle (Joe Sachs translation only) himself prefers the hierarchy with a plateau. In the Politics, he explicitly labels his preferred regime as a combination of two "bad" types: Oligarchy and Democracy, to form a good type: either Aristocracy, if slanted towards the elite, or Timocracy, if slanted towards the ruled.
He touches on the possibility of having a monarch on top of the Aristocracy in a long discussion about anacyclosis (changes between regimes), but it was really the Medieval Scholastics who innovated by including a king in the preferred regime.
Hard to get those "X is natural, therefore we have to institutionalize it" arguments. I would think that the more you trust the inevitability of some societal behavior, the less you need to make things work like that by design. The opposite would sound like a self-fulfiling prophecy
I can pretty much expect, or even find desirable, that from an ancap society hierarchies, leaders, authorities in certain fields will emerge, and if that's the case so be it. Their "rule" would still be subject to that same private property law initially established without rulers, which allows for those hierarchies to be more dynamically changed and replaced than long-term elected ones. And that's the major disagreement between [rothbardian] ancaps and agorists, the latter wouldn't tolerate that, because of their leftist worldview (in which hierarchies are inherently about power an oppression)
It always had been clear to me that when it comes to those denominations for political forms of organization, or lack thereof, we're talking about their boundaries, not how each member should act within them. If a monarch starts listening to its people for decision making, does it become a democracy? Or is it still a monarchy because institutionally still only one person has the final word? Right-wing anarchy is still political anarchy regardless of which voluntary hierarchies or private laws form inside its framework
For awhile now I have considered myself a libertarian without going much further in explaining. I have never found a sub-ideology to ascribe myself to, however, I have always been a bit weary of anarcho-capitalism. Maybe this is because of constant leftism critism or maybe because it is so "extreme" if you will. However, I am quite interested in learning about your critiques on anarcho-capitalism.
What would be the role of these leaders? You mentioned the leader might not partake in much of anything, and if so, how are they still a leader?
This is just an attempt of trying to fully understand and wrap my brain around the concept put forth. I'm going to go do my *homework* now!
The role is to set rules and enforce them. I am a moral realist, but not an imperialist, so I want to live in a kingdom which upholds the morals that I believe to be true. I would like all communities to follow these rules aswell, but I have to be realistic and realise that not all will. So, the purpose of decentralisation and multiplicity of these communities is that people can choose which rules to follow and go live where they're followed.
Moral and lawful are two different categories. Lawful action don’t violate property rights. Moral actions go much deeper than that. If I understand you right you are saying at least in part that you want rulers to enforce morality. The problem with that is a moral person does not need to be forced into moral action. Jesus doesn’t force the people around him to act in accordance with God. He instead teaches the word of God and than allows the people to act how they want now knowing about God and his teachings. A forced moral act is not moral. Only a person that voluntarily acts can be moral. Even if in the past they agree to a person or group enforcing their morality they still must choose to be moral in order for it to mean anything. A person punishing them because they choose to violate their contract of morality though lawful isn’t moral. It’s egotistical to believe you know the word of god or morality better than any other person. Thus even if you get people to agree on morality and to as a group enforce it the very enforcement of the morality destroys the whole morality of the acts or lack of. Morality must be a course that each person sets them self towards. It must be self induced you are not a person of faith if you are forced into faith even if you agree to be forced into faith. You must choose yourself to be faithful and moral.
Sorry for this being long and ranting. I just think that how you are framing morality is mislead. Disagree if you want I’m just trying to give a counter point as best as I can explain it. As long as your using reason I have nothing against you. Just don’t want an echo chamber like most platforms become. :)
I understand. Thank you for the clarification.
Do you have any recommendations on learning about moral realism?
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Thomas Aquinas, but you can watch this video to get started on the basics: https://youtu.be/zjkgD4w9w1k
Very, very good article! I hope you plan to do more on these subjects, but perhaps in longer form and perhaps focusing on specific writers or autistic details. Much love
Thank you! I'm quite happy with the length and detail of this, but I did want to get it out ASAP. So I'll go with the flow and see how it turns out
Here's one quibble I have: Aristotle (Joe Sachs translation only) himself prefers the hierarchy with a plateau. In the Politics, he explicitly labels his preferred regime as a combination of two "bad" types: Oligarchy and Democracy, to form a good type: either Aristocracy, if slanted towards the elite, or Timocracy, if slanted towards the ruled.
He touches on the possibility of having a monarch on top of the Aristocracy in a long discussion about anacyclosis (changes between regimes), but it was really the Medieval Scholastics who innovated by including a king in the preferred regime.
Hard to get those "X is natural, therefore we have to institutionalize it" arguments. I would think that the more you trust the inevitability of some societal behavior, the less you need to make things work like that by design. The opposite would sound like a self-fulfiling prophecy
I can pretty much expect, or even find desirable, that from an ancap society hierarchies, leaders, authorities in certain fields will emerge, and if that's the case so be it. Their "rule" would still be subject to that same private property law initially established without rulers, which allows for those hierarchies to be more dynamically changed and replaced than long-term elected ones. And that's the major disagreement between [rothbardian] ancaps and agorists, the latter wouldn't tolerate that, because of their leftist worldview (in which hierarchies are inherently about power an oppression)
It always had been clear to me that when it comes to those denominations for political forms of organization, or lack thereof, we're talking about their boundaries, not how each member should act within them. If a monarch starts listening to its people for decision making, does it become a democracy? Or is it still a monarchy because institutionally still only one person has the final word? Right-wing anarchy is still political anarchy regardless of which voluntary hierarchies or private laws form inside its framework